by Christopher A. Ferrara
April 3, 2017
A couple of weeks ago I wrote a column about the grinning priest on the left, Arturo Sosa, new head of the corrupted Jesuit order and another of the many heterodox “Friends of Bergoglio”. My column unpacked the flagrant heresy in Sosa’s recent interview on the dogma of the indissolubility of marriage, which he attempts to relativize according to the mere passage of time. This is the classic Modernist heresy of the “evolution” of dogma, which Sosa attempts to pass off under the Bergoglian rubric of “discernment,” meaning “discernment” of what a doctrine supposedly means “today” as opposed to the previous 2,000 years.
Well, a courageous priest has since upped the ante, delivering to both Pope Bergoglio and Cardinal Müller a memorandum examining the same interview and concluding that Sosa’s views, as Sandro Magister reports, are “of such gravity that they cannot be passed over in silence without becoming complicit in them,” because they threaten to “result in a Christianity without Christ.” Or, as I put it, a Catholicism without doctrine.
The priest in question, Father Roberto A. Maria Bertacchini, warns in his memorandum — which Francis will, of course, ignore — that to state, as Sosa did in his interview, that “it is not known if Jesus actually uttered those words [on the indissolubility of marriage] and that, in essence, they are not binding is ‘de facto’ a heresy, because it is a denial of the inspiration of Scripture. 2 Tim 3 is very clear: ‘All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, convincing, correcting, and training in righteousness.’”
Indeed, Bertacchini continues, “those who follow the doubts of the Jesuit general not only disavow Vatican II [concerning the divine inspiration of Scripture] … they also doubt Tradition to the point of making abstract and unattainable the very authority of Jesus as teacher. So we are facing a genuine carpet bombing, before which the firmest of reactions is absolutely necessary.” Again, the result would be a Catholicism stripped of all doctrine and dogma, which are replaced by a gnostic “discernment” that is nothing more than the Protestant principle of private judgment.
Father Bertacchini optimistically absolves Pope Bergoglio of any complicity in Sosa’s heresy based on a homily at Casa Santa Marta in which Bergoglio, according to Bertacchini, supposedly defended the words of Jesus against Sosa’s subversion. But it simply isn’t so. That very homily, on February 24, is the one that compelled Philip Lawler to protest that “the Pope turned the Gospel reading [Mark 10:1-12] completely upside-down” and that he “is engaged in a deliberate effort to change what the Church teaches.”
Indeed, in that homily, when discussing Our Lord’s confrontation with the Pharisees over whether it is lawful to divorce one’s wife, Pope Bergoglio declared: “Jesus does not answer whether it is lawful or not lawful; He doesn’t enter into their casuistic logic.” Nonsense. In the words that Pope Bergoglio simply refuses to mention in his many remarks on the subject, even though they were part of the Gospel reading for that very day, Our Lord declares: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
So the memorandum protesting Sosa’s errors should, in all honesty, be addressed to Francis as well, as were the five dubia of the four cardinals and the theological censures of the numerous errors in Amoris Laetitia presented to Francis by the 45 theologians.
Meanwhile, Francis has chosen another heretic, one Anne-Marie Pelletier, a French Professor of hermeneutics and biblical exegesis — in other words, a Modernist — to write the meditations for the Stations of the Cross at the Colosseum on Good Friday. Pelletier is a notorious advocate for the acceptance of divorce and “remarriage” in the Church. In the same manner as “Friend of Bergoglio” Sosa, “Friend of Bergoglio” Pelletier relativizes the teaching of Jesus on the indissolubility of marriage while denying that she is doing so:
“Exactly because the votum of Jesus – in favor of marriage and against divorce – is so clear, it is also open. […] This openness is not relativism, but the capacity to deal with the future.”
This is not relativism, she insists, while relativizing the Word of God to accommodate “the future.”
With such sophists and liars has Francis surrounded himself, elevating them to positions of utmost prominence. How many of these “coincidences” are we supposed to ignore before being forced to conclude, as Lawler does, that this Pope “is engaged in a deliberate effort to change what the Church teaches”?
Truly this disastrous pontificate is a sign that Heaven’s most dramatic intervention must be near at hand.